ChrisWeigant.com

Friday Talking Points [227] -- Smile, Mitt, You're On Candid Camera!

[ Posted Friday, September 21st, 2012 – 15:25 PDT ]

Wouldn't it be amusingly ironic if Mitt Romney only managed to get 47 percent of the national popular vote for president? It would renew my faith that the universe has a sense of humor, that's for sure.

Mitt Romney seems to be in the midst of what could be called an "extended macaca moment," desperately trying to divert people's attention from the video released earlier in the week. To show the level of this desperation, Mitt just did something he really hates to do -- he released another year of tax returns for the public and press to put their grubby little hands all over. When Mitt is releasing tax returns to change the subject, you just know he's in a bad place politically.

It may still be way too early to confidently predict the outcome of this year's election, but it isn't too early to call Mitt Romney's campaign (so far) an unmitigated disaster. Or maybe a "Mitt-igated" disaster, I'll have to check the dictionary. Any doubts as to the truth of this were dispelled today with the news that Mitt's campaign gave out bonuses to all the top staff, just after the Republican National Convention -- to the tune of $192,440. See, Republican politics should be run just like Wall Street -- it doesn't matter how badly you screw things up, you still get a fat bonus to take home when the dust settles. Yay!

Things weren't supposed to go this way, of course. A Democratic president with high unemployment led to a disgruntled public which seemed ready and willing to hand over the Oval Office keys to Any Generic Republican Candidate, a few months back. But then they got a look at Mister Generic himself, Mitt Romney, and have apparently decided that this Barack Obama fellow might deserve a second shot after all.

Republicans are still clinging to their hopes that Mitt Romney is the second coming of Ronald Reagan (no, really -- this is what they've come to), and that the proper electoral model for what is about to happen is 1980. Instead, the election is looking more and more like 2004, with the parties reversed. The rich white guy from Massachusetts who lacks charisma and can't seem to relate to average voters gets beat by a not-as-popular-as-he-once-was incumbent.

But, as we said, it's probably too early to draw such conclusions, as there certainly will be plenty of time for that after the votes are counted.

Let's see, what else is going on this week? The surge in Afghanistan is now officially over, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" repeal had an anniversary but nobody even noticed, and Occupy tried to hold their own first birthday party. Oh, and the United States Constitution is now officially 225 years old, so join me in saying "Happy birthday, foundational American governmental document!"

 

Most Impressive Democrat of the Week

The most impressive thing this week was the news that more U.S. soldiers have come home from the "graveyard of empires," Afghanistan. The anti-war folks will point out that the surge never should have happened in the first place, and at this point it's hard to argue otherwise, but it's always a good thing to see more soldiers coming home rather than heading out to foreign battlegrounds.

Maxine Waters beat a rap with the House ethics watchdogs, which cleared her name of the insinuation of wrongdoing for personal gain. But just proving your detractors wrong isn't really "impressive," rather more of a vindication. Elizabeth Warren performed well at her debate with Scott Brown, but certainly still has room for improvement in debating on television, so we're going to pass over her as well (Warren has been posting some impressive poll numbers, we should at least mention, though).

Joe Biden deserves at least an Honorable Mention, for posting the highest television ratings of any speaker during the Democratic National Convention. Way to go, Joe!

But our Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week this week is none other than James Earl Carter IV, grandson of ex-president Jimmy. Carter was the one who found the Romney video online, and who ferreted out the person who posted it anonymously -- and then promptly put it in the hands of Mother Jones, and the rest is history. Carter doesn't approve of Romney's characterization of his grandfather's time in office, apparently.

For performing this public service, James Earl Carter IV is our Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week this week. His action certainly set the tone of the campaign, all week long. We even have an amusing photo of the two Carters to share, which had been filed under "Ten Epic Yawns." All I can say is, nobody in the Romney camp is yawning now.

[James Earl Carter IV is a private citizen, and it is our policy not to provide contact information for people not officially in politics.]

 

Most Disappointing Democrat of the Week

We really don't have a Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week this week. The folks at the Justice Department who were disciplined over Fast and Furious seem far enough down the chain of command not to be political appointees, and we just didn't notice any others who made the scandal sheets this week. Maybe it's because I'm just getting over a cold, so I could have been so befogged with cough syrup earlier that I missed somebody, who knows? Feel free to make suggestions in the comments, as always.

Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper is being hypocritical in his stance against his state's upcoming ballot measure which would legalize marijuana for all adults, but he barely even rises to the level of a (Dis-)Honorable Mention, in our opinion.

 

Friday Talking Points

Volume 227 (9/21/12)

This past week was one of those when instructing Democrats how to frame talking points becomes almost redundant -- both because they just write themselves, and also because Democrats are actually doing a fairly great job of jumping all over Mitt Romney and his disdain for 47 percent of America.

In other words, it's now officially "Shooting Fish In A Barrel Week." Or, at least, 47 percent of them.

I've even got a bonus talking point, because it was so easy to come up with more than seven this week. Remember, back in the Election 2012 Dark Ages... say, a month ago... when Mitt Romney and the Republicans were all whining that President Obama was "being divisive"? It was a big talking point on the right, for some reason. Obama was "dividing" the country up and "setting groups against each other." Remember those halcyon days?

Well, Republicans apparently haven't. So, please, do your best to remind them of the reeking stench of their hypocrisy this week. Unless, of course, they denounce Mitt Romney's "47 percent" remarks, but I wouldn't exactly recommend holding your breath and waiting for that to happen.

 

1
   Say that to their faces, Mitt.

The most odious point should really be the first one you bother to use. All else follows, really.

"So Mitt Romney thinks that wounded war veterans are, to use his term, 'victims.' I cannot tell you how disgusted that mischaracterization makes me feel -- words fail me. These brave men and women who have put their lives on the line for this country -- and are now being supported by a grateful America, as they should be -- have to listen to a man who never wore his country's uniform disparage them and what they have been through. Well, wounded or not, Mr. Romney, I'd like to see you say that to their faces. I think I know what their response would be."

 

2
   Don't forget the seniors

Seniors vote, remember. Especially in places like sunny Florida.

"For all the seniors out there who have worked hard all their lives and contributed to programs like Social Security and Medicare, I would like to say to Mitt Romney how dare you call my parents 'not responsible' and 'victims'! How dare you use such language to speak of someone who lived through the Great Depression, especially considering that you have never wondered where your next meal was coming from for your entire life. The nerve of simply writing off 'The Greatest Generation' in such a fashion is downright offensive -- not just to me, but to all the parents and grandparents out there whose vote Mitt Romney is seeking."

 

3
   Donor regret setting in yet?

This one is too easy a knife to twist.

"Mitt Romney just handed out almost two hundred thousand dollars in bonuses to his campaign team. Boy, if I were a Romney donor, I'd be hopping mad to hear that. The gang who can't shoot straight is being lavished with extra money from Mitt Romney's campaign? And he's supposed to be the one who understands business? Maybe Wall Street banking, where everyone gets a bonus no matter how badly they blow it, but as I said, if I had donated that money, I'd be picking up the phone to the Romney campaign right about now. If not putting a stop payment on the check."

 

4
   Romney wants to expand the 47 percent!

I went into detail on why it is laughably ironic to hear Republicans complain about a result their own policies have largely created earlier this week. But since Mitt released a tax return today, let's hit him on that argument instead.

"Since, by Mitt Romney's figuring, no other taxes than income taxes seem to 'count,' let's look at Mitt Romney's tax burden. Since 'capital gains taxes' are different than 'income taxes' they don't really count towards Mitt's total, which leaves Mitt paying less than one percent in income taxes. Paul Ryan wants to get this down to zero for Mitt and everyone like him -- that's part of his budget. So what Ryan and Romney would do would be to move a whole bunch of millionaires and billionaires into that 47 percent they talk about. They don't hate the 47 percent -- they want to be part of it!"

 

5
   I guess farmers don't count, either

This one should be aimed at every single Republican in the House of Representatives, back home on the campaign trail.

"The Republican House left town without doing its job -- and because of their incompetence, America's farmers have no idea what the federal government will be doing to help them during a year that saw a devastating drought across over half the country. Senate Democrats and Republicans passed a bipartisan farm bill, but the House couldn't get the job done. I guess Republicans have decided it's not their job to worry about the farmers of America, even if they aren't part of the other 47 percent Mitt Romney's ignoring. Hope all those farmers are paying attention to which party is working for them, and which party refuses to do its job."

 

6
   What battlegrounds?

Mitt Romney doesn't seem to be having much luck in the polls these days. Which is, of course, worth pointing out.

"All the pundits talk about the 'battleground states' but according to all the polls I've seen, Barack Obama seems to be leading in just about every single one of them. I just saw Mitt Romney can't even count on North Carolina anymore, which I think was just about the only battleground state he had been polling consistently well in. I realize the media loves to keep all these states labeled 'battlegrounds' to prolong the suspense of the race, but it seems to me in quite a few of these the battle's really already been won."

 

7
   That one looks like a campaign going down in flames, doesn't it?

I saved the best one for last. This is up there with the "trees are the right height" quote from Michigan. When a reporter asked Mitt Romney recently whether he would be campaigning more extensively in the near future, the New York Times reports Mitt's response:

"Ha, ha. We're in the stretch, aren't we?" Mr. Romney said before promptly changing the subject and pointing to the sky. "Look at those clouds. It's beautiful. Look at those things."

-- Chris Weigant

 

All-time award winners leaderboard, by rank
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

Cross-posted at: Democratic Underground

 

155 Comments on “Friday Talking Points [227] -- Smile, Mitt, You're On Candid Camera!”

  1. [1] 
    Michale wrote:

    Mitt's 47% gaffe is identical to Obama's "people cling to guns and religions gaffe"...

    People are saying now the exact same thing about Mitt that people said about Obama back then...

    Yaaaawwwwnnnnnn

    No Disappointing Democrats this week!???

    Oh jeezus... There is no rhyme nor reason in the universe...

    :D

    Michale.....

  2. [2] 
    Michale wrote:

    When Mitt is releasing tax returns to change the subject, you just know he's in a bad place politically.

    Speaking of Most Disappointing Democrat...

    Harry Reid has gotten awful quiet as of late, eh?? :D

    Didn't Reid swear up and down that Romney hadn't paid ANY taxes in ten years???

    Funny how Democrats will forgive lying when it comes from one of their own.... :D

    Michale.....

  3. [3] 
    Michale wrote:

    Another interesting point about Romney's taxes..

    Democrats like Buffet, Reid, Pelosi and Obama whine and bitch and cry that rich people should pay more than their fair share.

    Romney DID pay more than his fair share, with no fanfare or political agenda...

    Further, Romney gave more than 4 million dollars to charity.. More than TWICE the amount Obama paid.

    Using ya'alls reasoning, I guess that means that Romney cares for the poor TWICE as much as Obama does.. :D

    Michale....

  4. [4] 
    Michale wrote:

    Speaking of Biden...

    “Guess what, the cheerleaders in college are the best athletes in college. You think, I’m joking, they’re almost all gymnasts, the stuff they do on hard wood, it blows my mind.”

    That's our Veep!! :D

    Michale.....

  5. [5] 
    Michale wrote:

    Instead, the election is looking more and more like 2004, with the parties reversed. The rich white guy from Massachusetts who lacks charisma and can't seem to relate to average voters gets beat by a not-as-popular-as-he-once-was incumbent.

    So, you are saying that Obama is like Bush!!???

    Their gonna drum you out of the Mickey Mouse Obama Club for such heresy!!!! :D

    Michale.....

  6. [6] 
    statusquoteme wrote:

    Michale Nice to see you're back at it. With the whole 47% = guns/bibles, the guns/bibles happened in the primary, big difference there.Romney: I haven't calculated that. I'm happy to go back and look but my view is I've paid all the taxes required by law. From time to time I've been audited as happens I think to other citizens as well and the accounting firm which prepares y taxes has done a very thorough and complete job pay taxes as legally due. I don't pay more than are legally due and frankly if I had paid more than are legally due I don't think I'd be qualified to become president. I'd think people would want me to follow the law and pay only what the tax code requires. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/transcript-david-muir-interview-mitt-romney/story?id=16881787&page=2#.UF1-olFnAwi

  7. [7] 
    Michale wrote:

    status,

    Michale Nice to see you're back at it.

    "I'm not back!!!"
    -Bill Paxton, TWISTER

    :D

    I was never gone from "it'... I just figured I would give ya'all some time to wallow in your echo chamber. And lo' and behold, I am missed.. :D

    big difference there

    Of course, you would say that. I would even wager that you actually BELIEVE it..

    But to Independents and NPAs, there really isn't any difference..

    Regardless, even if there WAS a difference, there has NEVER been an election or a primary that hinged on a gaffe..

    I don't pay more than are legally due and frankly if I had paid more than are legally due I don't think I'd be qualified to become president. I'd think people would want me to follow the law and pay only what the tax code requires.

    And, in 2009, Obama said:

    "If I can't turn this economy around in 3 years, I don't DESERVE a second term."

    So, if you REALLY want to play battling quotes, I can do it all night long...

    But unless you are ready to give EQUAL weight to the quotes (and of course, we know that you never would), then it would be pointless, no??

    Michale.....

  8. [8] 
    Michale wrote:

    Here is ya'all's problem..

    I *CAN* be objectively critical of the Right. Whether I choose to or not is a matter of some debate, true, but it is undeniable that I CAN be objectively critical of the Right.

    The same simply cannot be said for ya'all. With the possible exception of our illustrious host, NO ONE here can be objectively critical of the Left..

    How do we know this??

    Simple.

    Show me ONE time that anyone (except CW and a couple others(they know who they are)) has been critical of the Left that had absolutely NOTHING to do with the Right...

    Show me ONE time that ANYONE (ANYONE) here has taken a Right Wing position on an issue that had the Left Wing opposing said issue..

    ONE time...

    No one can, because it has never happened..

    So, either the Left is ALWAYS on the correct side of EVERY issue.

    OR....

    Ya'all are always on the side of the Left, right or wrong...

    Employing Occam's Razor, the correct answer is clear...

    That's why no one here will ever win a debate with me..

    Because, ultimately, ya'all's (again, with a few exceptions) first and foremost position is that the Left is better than the Right.

    And there is overwhelming evidence that completely and utterly destroys that fantasy...

    Michale.....

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    Apropos of absolutely nothing (other than I am wearing it again today) I wanted to share a personal anecdote.. :D

    I was wearing my GOVERNMENT DIDN'T BUILD MY BUSINESS, I DID shirt last week..

    I had a guy come into my shop, noticed my shirt and said, "No. You didn't build your business"...

    I thought to myself, "Oh shit, there's gonna be a rumble.." The guy intoned very seriously, "You didn't build your business! The roads and bridges built your business!"...

    He then laughed and stuck out his hand and said, "Congrats on building a successful business IN SPITE of the government.." and we shared a good laugh..

    The moral???

    There are many MANY Americans who aren't real happy with Obama and how he has governed...

    Ya'all will be facing a huge let down come Nov....

    Michale.....

  10. [10] 
    michty6 wrote:

    CW

    For MDDOTW I have an offering: Tim Kaine. This guy didn't quite get the whole 47% criticism and misunderstood the entire problem with Romney's statement leading to the following horrendous statement during a debate:

    I would be open to a proposal that would have some minimum tax level for everyone
    although to put it in context he did follow it with but I do insist, many of the 47 percent that Gov. Romney was going after pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes than he does.

    Yes a minimum federal tax on the poor will fix things. I suggest he switches parties if he trully believes this. Idiot.

    Michale
    Once again you've completely missed the point of both the 47% and tax return issues. However:

    Didn't Reid swear up and down that Romney hadn't paid ANY taxes in ten years?

    I was highly critical of Reid when he made this statement and I'm going to say something that is going to sound crazy but here goes: I agree with Michale! Reid should be apologizing as, even though we don't know how much Romney paid in taxes, it was clearly >$0 (even if it was $1) making his statement false.

    Further, Romney gave more than 4 million dollars to charity.. More than TWICE the amount Obama paid.
    Using ya'alls reasoning, I guess that means that Romney cares for the poor TWICE as much as Obama does

    Lol nice try. Romney gave $4m to the Mormon Church, which is classified as a charity for tax purposes. Big difference than actually giving money to charity...

    Show me ONE time that anyone (except CW and a couple others(they know who they are)) has been critical of the Left that had absolutely NOTHING to do with the Righ

    The problem is when people do do it you are completely blind to it. And you might not believe this but during an election is usually the time where people are going to be LEAST critical of their party, especially when there is a danger doing so would lead to the election of an someone incompetent and dangerous like Romney...

  11. [11] 
    LewDan wrote:

    "There are many MANY Americans who aren't real happy with Obama and how he has governed..."

    Yes, we call them Republicans. Big surprise. And you claim this is an echo chamber?

    Since you're so objective, and all, let's both agree that Republicans just love to project their behavior onto everyone else.

    That when Republicans divide the country into those they care about and those they don't its Republicans that are the ones being divisive.

    That when Republicans disparage those who don't pay income taxes as undeserving of government support, the Republicans are the ones claiming they're "entitled."

    That when Republicans claim historically low taxes are an undue burden because 47% of Americans don't pay income taxes its the Republicans who see themselves as "victims."

    That when the Republicans are running to represent Americans, 47% of whom they have no intention of actually representing, its the Republicans who are the freeloaders.

    That when Republicans demand continuing tax-cuts for for the wealthy to sustain our business environment its the wealthy who are "dependent on government."

    So, Mister "objective," let's both objectively agree to the blatant dishonesty and hypocrisy of the Republican party, and business community supporting them.

    Forget about the Democrats. Lets just objectively look at the Republicans and agree that they are greedy, unethical, lying, hypocrites concerned only with their own self-interests.

  12. [12] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Wouldn't it be amusingly ironic if Mitt Romney only managed to get 47 percent of the national popular vote for president?

    I think it would be even more amusing if O were the one to pull 47%.

    I see Gallup's got them tied at 47% today, and Rasmussen ties them at 46%.

    "All the pundits talk about the 'battleground states' but according to all the polls I've seen, Barack Obama seems to be leading in just about every single one of them. I just saw Mitt Romney can't even count on North Carolina anymore

    Who's drawing these conclusions? North Carolina is a dead heat. Does anyone factor in margins or error anymore? The latest poll I saw for NC, from three days ago, has O up by 2 points, a.k.a., inside the MoE. A candidate isn't statistically ahead until he breaks out of the MoE.

    I'd be real wary of the polls, going forward, Chris. I see that Pew, after having been busted for over-sampling Dems last month, did the same thing again this month. I'm seeing a lot of that going on in recent polling. Remember the Scott Walker/recall debacle? Over-sampling is how that happens. Just a reminder.

  13. [13] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    "There are many MANY Americans who aren't real happy with Obama and how he has governed..."

    Yes, we call them Republicans. Big surprise. And you claim this is an echo chamber?

    on this i beg to differ. speaking as a democrat who is center-left on most issues, i can say unequivocally that there are many non-republicans who are decidedly less than happy about the job the president has done.

    fortunately for obama, his main opponent seems to constantly do things to make him look better. i've said it before and i'll say it again - with all the things obama has stacked against him in this election, his biggest advantage is the ineptness of his opposition.

    ~joshua

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    Michty

    I was highly critical of Reid when he made this statement and I'm going to say something that is going to sound crazy but here goes: I agree with Michale! Reid should be apologizing as, even though we don't know how much Romney paid in taxes, it was clearly >$0 (even if it was $1) making his statement false.

    I take back some of the bad things I thought about ya... :D

    "Some?"
    -Worf, STAR TREK VIII, FIRST CONTACT

    :D

    LD,

    Yes, we call them Republicans. Big surprise. And you claim this is an echo chamber?

    That's your problem, LD. You think that no one BUT the Right could EVER have a problem with Obama..

    That guy who cracked that joke at Obama's expense about my shirt?? That was a black guy. We commiserated with each on how bad Obama had us fooled.

    You really need to open your eyes and see the REAL world. There is a video that has ONLY Independents and Democrats speaking about how bad Obama has disappointed them...

    I realize it's hard for you to take, but more people are DIS-SATISFIED with Obama than are satisfied...

    Since you're so objective, and all, let's both agree that Republicans just love to project their behavior onto everyone else.

    And the Left would NEVER do that, right!?? :D

    Forget about the Democrats.

    Yea, you would like that, wouldn't ya?? :D

    Lets just objectively look at the Republicans and agree that they are greedy, unethical, lying, hypocrites concerned only with their own self-interests.

    Agreed...

    And Democrats are just as bad, if not WORSE...

    This is documented FACT... :D

    CB,

    It's easy to shut the Left up when they get all giddy about the polls...

    Carter Lead Reagan by 5 points a week before the election.

    We all know how THAT story turned out.. :D

    Michale...

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    That's your problem, LD. You think that no one BUT the Right could EVER have a problem with Obama..

    Does ANYONE here *honestly* believe that it's ONLY the Right that has a problem with Obama???

    Michale.....

  16. [16] 
    michty6 wrote:

    It's easy to shut the Left up when they get all giddy about the polls...
    Carter Lead Reagan by 5 points a week before the election.

    Reagan actually led Carter going into the debates. And 7 days before the election Carter led - yes - but the next 6 days he did not.

    The difference is that the lead switched places several times in that race. In 2012 Romney has never led. Not once during the whole of 2012. Romney is performing worse than McCain in the polls; and 2012 Obama just overtook 2008 Obama for the first time.

    Anyway there is no point discussing polls with you since I read them in detail, you don't read them and have openly stated you don't believe in them or understand them at all...

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:

    Anyway there is no point discussing polls with you since I read them in detail, you don't read them and have openly stated you don't believe in them or understand them at all...

    Oh I understand them. I understand them COMPLETELY..

    That's why I know they're shit... :D

    Michale....

  18. [18] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    It's easy to shut the Left up when they get all giddy about the polls...

    Carter Lead Reagan by 5 points a week before the election.

    And undecideds broke for Reagan, just as they generally do for the challenger, as Dick Morris reminds:

    "...But the fact is that the undecided vote always goes against the incumbent. In 1980 (the last time an incumbent Democrat was beaten), for example, the Gallup Poll of October 27th had Carter ahead by 45-39. Their survey on November 2nd showed Reagan catching up and leading by three points. In the actual voting, the Republican won by nine. The undecided vote broke sharply — and unanimously — for the challenger.

    An undecided voter has really decided not to back the incumbent. He just won’t focus on the race until later in the game.

    So, when the published poll shows Obama ahead by, say, 48-45, he’s really probably losing by 52-48!

    Add these two factors together and the polls that are out there are all misleading. Any professional pollster (those consultants hired by candidates not by media outlets) would publish two findings for each poll — one using 2004 turnout modeling and the other using 2008 modeling. This would indicate just how dependent on an unusually high turnout of his base the Obama camp really is."
    http://www.dickmorris.com/why-the-polls-under-state-romney-vote/

  19. [19] 
    LewDan wrote:

    Michale,

    I asked for an objective recognition of facts, but, once again, as always, you only make subjective comparisons with Democrats because you are not, and never have been "objective."

  20. [20] 
    LewDan wrote:

    "That's your problem, LD. You think that no one BUT the Right could EVER have a problem with Obama.."

    I'm well aware of many with problems with Obama, left and right, I've just never heard anyone with complaints I consider legitimate that could remotely justify the vitriol coming from the left and the right.

    To be blunt. In my opinion the right is upset because they didn't get another Bush. They lost their last attempt to elect one and they've been doing all in their power to sabotage Obama until they could try again now.

    The left is also upset because they didn't get another Bush. For some reason, known only to them, they expected (so they claim) Obama to ram through a radical progressive agenda. Obama, however, never promised to do any such thing. He promised to represent everyone, to seek compromise and consensus, to actually honor the Constitution (which would include leaving legislation up to Congress.)

    I'm not upset with Obama because he's done nothing that surprised me. There's been so little drama with his administration the opposition's had trouble even inventing anything credible to complain about. Considering the state of the nation he inherited, economically and politically, that's quite a testament to his effectiveness as President.

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    Lol nice try. Romney gave $4m to the Mormon Church, which is classified as a charity for tax purposes. Big difference than actually giving money to charity...

    Ahhh.. So now we are specifying what charities are "real" and what are not???

    Lemme ask you.. If he gave it to a muslim charity, would that be a "REAL" charity??? :D

    LD,

    I asked for an objective recognition of facts, but, once again, as always, you only make subjective comparisons with Democrats because you are not, and never have been "objective."

    That's your problem. EVERYTHING that is against DEMOCRATS can *never* be objective.. Because, if it's against Democrats, it's wrong..

    It's like the old Soviet Union's definition of insanity.

    Anyone who wanted to leave the USSR *must* be insane...

    In your eyes, anyone who speaks against Democrats *CAN'T* be objective..

    Your's is a self-fulfilling delusion...

    A dream-world. A fantasy...

    And, on 7 Nov, it's going to come crashing down...

    I just hope you hang around here. I would hate for you to miss all the gloating... :D

    CB,

    Yea, Weigantians are in for a VERY rude awakening come 7 Nov.. :D

    Michale....

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    Considering the state of the nation he inherited, economically and politically, that's quite a testament to his effectiveness as President.

    Which testament would that be??

    Gas at more than TWICE per gallon it was when Obama took office??

    Median Family income at it's lowest since the Great Depression under Obama??

    Welfare rolls increasing 10-fold under Obama??

    More people added to Food Stamps than found jobs thanx to Obama's lack of creating jobs??

    Yea, that's quite a testament...

    It's a testament to FAILURE..

    A testament to failure that rivals Jimmy Carter...

    And THAT is saying something....

    Obama will have something else in common with Carter. A one-term Democrat President that was THROWN out of office...

    Michale.....

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    Obama's ONE BIG promise was that he was going to change Washington..

    Now he admits he can't do it...

    And everyone here STILL drinks the Obama kool-aid...

    Funny how that is, eh???

    If it was a GOP President that said something like that, ya'all would have him burned at the stake..

    Isn't that EXACTLY what happened with Bush HW??

    I guess ya'all only hold REPUBLICAN presidents to their word..

    Democrat Presidents get a pass..

    As we have seen over and over and over and over again with ya'all and Obama...

    Michale.....

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ahhh.. So now we are specifying what charities are "real" and what are not???

    Careful michty.. If you say the wrong thing about a religion and they riot, it's going to be hate speech..

    hehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehe

    Michale.....

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    michty,

    The problem is when people do do it you are completely blind to it.

    I am not blind to it.

    It's NEVER happened.

    Take you for example. The ONLY time you were critical of Obama is when he extended the Bush tax cuts.. Then you went ahead and said it's only because the Republicans made him do it..

    First off, Obama is a grown man and the most powerful man on the planet.. You are saying that a MINORITY Party "made" him do something???

    Second, that isn't blaming Obama for ANYTHING.. You "blame" him for something and then EXCUSE him for it in the very next breath..

    Go ahead...

    Give me an issue where, the Democrats are on one side and the Republicans are on the other and you side with the Republicans against the Democrats.

    Just ONE issue..

    Barring that..

    Give me something that you blame Obama for that has absolutely NOTHING to do with Republicans...

    I'll wager you can't do either, but....

    Surprise me...

    Michale.....

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    I mean, seriously..

    Look at it..

    If you had an alien that came down from Alpha Centuari, knew absolutely NOTHING about our system of government and our elections and ALL they read was all the CW.COM posts except for mine and CB's, they would come away thinking that Obama and Democrats walk on water and Romney and Republicans are the epitome of evil...

    It's like Jonestown around here...

    NO ONE will be critical of Obama or the Democrats..

    Oh sure.. Someone will throw out a tidbit because this obscure Dem got caught boinking the cat or that obscure Dem got caught saying something stoopid, but it never really changes anything...

    The climate around here is that everything Left is good and proper and everything Right is evil and lousy..

    And THAT climate *NEVER* changes....

    Pretty much ANY debate starts from "Dem GOOD GOP BAD" and that's where it ends....

    I would give my RIGHT testical (not my left one, that's sacred) for some real honest to goodness debate....

    But it's looking like that will have to wait after the election..

    Even then, it's likely never to happen because everyone around here will be in KILL THE REPUBLICANS mode....

    It's depressing...

    Michale....

  27. [27] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Hey, Michale!

    What do you say we start the Fund Drive with Canadian Thanksgiving ... that would be October 8th.

    Deal?

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    Canada has a Thanksgiving?? :D

    I guess that would be CW's call..

    Are you trying to make me less prolific? :D

    Or drive me to the poor house??

    hehehehehe

    Michale.....

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    Another interesting point.

    Where did the Left's PRO-Government stance come from??

    Under Bush, the Left was hysterical AGAINST the Government. To the point of impeding and obstructing legislation that was (apparently) vital to the National Security..

    So, what changed between then and now??

    I guess the Left is only Pro-Government when Democrats run the Government...

    Once more, proving that the ONLY thing that matters in politics is that '-D' or that '-R' that comes after the name.

    "We're at war with Eurasia. We have always been at way with Eurasia."

    Who woulda thinked it that it would be the DEMOCRATS who brought Orwell's 1984 to reality...

    Michale.....

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    "This is a fundamental difference in how they would govern. Mitt Romney seems to believe he can wave a magic wand and tell people what to do within the walls of Washington, and that that's going to make change happen in this country."
    -Obama Campaign Spokesperson

    Which is EXACTLY what Obama was saying in 2008...

    The difference is, Romney has a work history of being "sterling"...

    Obama's work history is one failure after another...

    Which is why you don't see Obama running on his record...

    Because the ONE question that is on EVERY American Voter's mind is:

    "Am I better off now under Obama?"

    And, for the VAST majority of Americans, the answer is an unequivocal NO...

    Obama's campaign message from 2008 is dead on ballz accurate today.

    We don't need the status quo as represented by Obama..

    We need a change...

    Michale.....

  31. [31] 
    statusquoteme wrote:

    Michale, you could go all night with quotes? Naaaah! Are you really going to equate a quote said in April to a quote released in September as the same in a voter's memory? At least that's what I meant when I wrote 'big difference there' I am not sure if that's how you took it. A gaffe has never won an election but when gaffing inadvertently becomes a campaign theme, who knows what built the destruction. As far as the quotes' merits, people do cling to their guns and their ammo because that's where they find their strength. 47% of the population, in a twisted way do not pay federal income tax for various reasons-to lump them together as he did and speak of them as he did as a congealed group-is a bit rich. I'm glad after just a few times of interacting you think you know me so well, it's heartening. As to Obama speaking of his three years, can't ya cut the guy some slack? To talk against the 'party line' I find it ludicrous just how un-socialist Obama is, if he were half as left as your people give him credit, some more roads may be fixed. Let the ride tides roll! Eh?

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:

    Reagan actually led Carter going into the debates. And 7 days before the election Carter led - yes - but the next 6 days he did not.

    The difference is that the lead switched places several times in that race. In 2012 Romney has never led. Not once during the whole of 2012. Romney is performing worse than McCain in the polls; and 2012 Obama just overtook 2008 Obama for the first time.

    Yes... And, if you tilt your head just so, while looking thru the wrong end of binoculars, squint your eyes 47% on the sixth day of any month ending in "Y", you can see that Obama is really Jesus Christ...

    In other words, you can cherry pick "facts" until the cows come home to try to make your god appear good, but you simply CANNOT alter one simple fact...

    Americans are worse off now than they were in Jan of 2009...

    And THAT is what is going to determine this election..

    Michale....

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    Michale, you could go all night with quotes? Naaaah! Are you really going to equate a quote said in April to a quote released in September as the same in a voter's memory?

    Absotively..

    A gaffe has never won an election but when gaffing inadvertently becomes a campaign theme, who knows what built the destruction.

    I have to concede that point. Especially since it was I who made it with Obama's "You didn't build that" gaffe..

    So, point to you. :D

    As far as the quotes' merits, people do cling to their guns and their ammo because that's where they find their strength.

    Assumes facts not in evidence..

    But it DOES show your bias quite clearly. Obama is right, Romney is wrong..

    Is that it?? :D

    I'm glad after just a few times of interacting you think you know me so well, it's heartening.

    Let's just say I know the type.. It's 99% of the citizenry here in Weigantia.. :D

    As to Obama speaking of his three years, can't ya cut the guy some slack?

    Did anyone cut Bush some slack?? He was fighting a ruthless unrelenting enemy that dogged him at every turn. AND fighting Al Qaeda at the same time..

    Does anyone cut Romney some slack??

    To talk against the 'party line' I find it ludicrous just how un-socialist Obama is, if he were half as left as your people give him credit, some more roads may be fixed. Let the ride tides roll! Eh?

    Actually, I never claimed Obama was a socialist, a communist, a muslim or any other 'ist' or 'im' or 'ism'..

    I merely state (and have the FACTS to back it up) that Obama is an opportunistic, incompetent and self-centered politician who has absolutely NO leadership capabilities whatsoever..

    Now, Romney is also an opportunistic, self-centered politician, but at least HE has shown competence and leadership. Such that even the Left (Clinton) says that Romney's business acumen is "sterling"...

    So, the question is, do we want a politician who is incompetent and a failed leader?? Or do we want a politician who is competent with a sterling business record??

    The choice is clear to those who are not blinded and enslaved by Party ideology and dogma...

    Michale.....

  34. [34] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    The climate around here is that everything Left is good and proper and everything Right is evil and lousy..

    michale,

    although we as a community are reality-based, this is still a partisan website. republicans already have their talking points, and they are extremely skilled at repeating them ad nauseum - so well, in fact, that frequently they end up in the vernacular and you yourself end up repeating them. CW explicitly makes friday columns partisan; that's just understood. i can't speak for lefties everywhere, but most folks who come here support arguments from the Left only when they seem to make more sense. contrary to your repeated assertion, there is plenty of criticism of the president and other major democrats here. i think you're the only one who suggests otherwise.
    ~joshua

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    although we as a community are reality-based, this is still a partisan website.

    Yet no one (with a couple notable exceptions) will concede to their biases.

    Except me, that is.. :D

    republicans already have their talking points, and they are extremely skilled at repeating them ad nauseum - so well, in fact, that frequently they end up in the vernacular

    And Democrats don't??

    and you yourself end up repeating them.

    Only the ones that make sense and fit the facts..

    CW explicitly makes friday columns partisan; that's just understood.

    True.. But for the last several months or more, that partisanship has become MORE acute on Fridays AND has spilled out into the other days..

    Granted, it's election season, so this is to be expected..

    My beef is that ya'all (again with notable exceptions) refuse to acknowledge that ya'all ARE biased!! Ya'all treat it as this is the reality..

    You wouldn't hear half from me if ya'all would say, "Yea! I am drunk on the Obama Kool-Aid! Deal with it!!"

    I can respect that kind of honesty.. But this hoity-toity superiority complex that Democrats are pure as the driven snow just really get's my juices flowing. :D

    i can't speak for lefties everywhere, but most folks who come here support arguments from the Left only when they seem to make more sense. contrary to your repeated assertion, there is plenty of criticism of the president and other major democrats here. i think you're the only one who suggests otherwise.

    And yet, I have asked for MONTHS for ANY indication that ANYONE here ('cept CW of course) has supported the GOP *against* the Democrats..

    Not ONE single time has this ever happened here.

    So... This means there are only two possibilities..

    1. The Democrats are ALWAYS right..

    2. Ya'all support Democrats, even when they are not right.

    Obama's response to the Libya terrorist attack was a complete and utter debacle. For NINE DAYS, the administration spun a story that was utterly unbelievable and turned out to be WRONG on *each and every point*...

    If there EVER was a debacle that CRIED out for bi-partisan condemnation, it was THAT....

    So, where was it???

    My guess is that no one wants to criticize Obama because they are afraid.. Don't want to give Michale any ammunition, right!?? :D

    's OK.. In about 40 some odd days, it will all be over... Then ya'all will just have to put up with an excessive amount of gloating... :D

    Michale.....

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    True.. But for the last several months or more, that partisanship has become MORE acute on Fridays AND has spilled out into the other days..

    Which explains why my ANTI-OBAMA spewage has become more and more pronounced and pointed..

    It's simply in response to the illogical and irrational Obama-LoveFest KoolAid bingeing that has grown to biblical proportions around here..

    Not so much from the Grand Poobah, but rather from the rank and file Weigantians...

    Michale.....

  37. [37] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Not ONE single time has this ever happened here.

    surely you jest.

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    surely you jest.

    I don't... ANd don't call me Surely.. :D

    Just losing something in the translation to print..

    Seriously... Can you point to ANY time that ANYONE (sans CW), in an issue that had Democrats on one side and Republicans on the other, that ANYONE took the Republican position..

    I can allow that you or David MAY have done so, although none come to mind...

    I know for an absolute FACT that no one else has...

    Michale....

  39. [39] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    I can allow that you or David MAY have done so, although none come to mind...

    I know for an absolute FACT that no one else has...

    aside from CW, david, myself and (obviously) CB, dan (dswd) definitely has. on rare occasions even liz has acknowledged that republicans get things right once in awhile. not often, mind you, but nearly everyone who has been here more than a fortnight has had occasion to disagree with democrats and/or agree with republicans at some time or another. the level of extremism you're attributing to weigantdom, for the most part simply isn't there.

    ~joshua

  40. [40] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    i don't have time to go digging through the archives right now, but take my word on this, given time i will be able to name an issue where each individual i mentioned agreed with republicans on something or other. ask them, and they'll probably be able to tell you straight out.

  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:

    aside from CW, david, myself and (obviously) CB, dan (dswd) definitely has.

    On an issue that there was Democrats on one side and Republicans on the other, you are saying that someone here actually took the GOP side AGAINST the Democrats??

    I would have to see that to believe it..

    Like I said, sans CW, I *CAN* see where you and Dave might have. CB, of course.. :D

    But I honestly don't believe that any other here has actually taken the GOP side over the Dem side..

    If you come across such a critter, by all means, point it out...

    As far as standing up to Obama and calling foul, only you have done it with the Educational issues.. I don't think anyone else has called Obama on his screw-ups that had nothing to do with Republicans...

    Michty came close, but then he had to say "The Republicans MADE him do it".. Which is a pre-forgiven condemnation..

    Suffice it to say, NO ONE here is as hard on Democrats (sans CB) as I am on Republicans...

    To me, that's the mark of a TRULY un-biased person..

    Michale......

  42. [42] 
    Michale wrote:

    Suffice it to say, NO ONE here is as hard on Democrats (sans CB) as I am on Republicans...

    If I recall correctly, it was you who summed me up perfectly...

    I really hate Republicans and I really REALLY hate Democrats... :D

    That's so dead on, it's scary.. :D

    Michale.....

  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:

    aside from CW, david, myself and (obviously) CB, dan (dswd) definitely has.

    I had forgotten about dsws.. Yea, I do recall being surprised when he took a position against Democrats..

    So.. Yea.. dsws would be part of the Joshua/David show... :D

    Michale.....

  44. [44] 
    Michale wrote:

    Having said the afore, I still don't recall ANYONE here taking the side of Republicans AGAINST the Democrats..

    I will allow that it MIGHT have happened, but I have a fairly decent memory (even in my advanced years (50 of Friday. :D)) and I think I would recall such a momentous and out of the ordinary occasion...

    Michale.....

  45. [45] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/09/23/article-2207301-1526C6B1000005DC-749_634x404.jpg

    No WONDER Obama doesn't understand every day Americans....

    I don't know what's more disgusting..

    The fact that this clown has that much cash to wave around..

    Or the fact that he has the total lack of scruples TO wave it around...

    This is another instance where ya'all would have gone apeshit if Romney was pictured waving around a huge wad of cash...

    Am I wrong???

    Michale.....

  46. [46] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    The Romney campaign is abandoning trying to win on the Obama first term economy. Bill Kristol went so far today as to say Obama turned the economy around "pretty well" given the crisis the inherited. Why the campaign -and the movement Conservatives- didn't figure this out a couple months ago is beyond me, but I guess better late than never.

    They didn't want it to be a choice election, but now it is. There are several problems with that for Gov. Romney. The luxury of "trust me" and "it has to better with us" is gone. Specifics on economic policies that will play in the six states on which the election will turn is going to again infuriate the rightmost constituencies. He has to overcome the lingering distrust, boosted by the 47 tape, and poll supported, that he does and will favor oligarchical interests over the public at large.

    It's going to be real interesting to see how they frame this choice. No matter how he turns, whatever he says, the interns will probably be able to find video of him saying just the opposite in a few hours.

    I think the bottom line is this: Under the conventional wisdom that the economy would beat Obama and they just needed a competent journeyman to manage the agenda going forward, Romney fit the bill. The primaries provided a generic politician, even more so than was John Kerry.

    It's the nature and the practice of generic politicians to do and say what they have to do for the moment. In the age when everything is taped, and fact checks and prior statements are recovered in minutes, these guys - in both parties - are dinosaurs. And losers.

  47. [47] 
    Michale wrote:

    Let me give you an example of what I would expect from a Weigantian...

    http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/09/23/article-2207301-1526C6B1000005DC-749_634x404.jpg

    "While I think it's silly to harp on a single candid snapshot and it's ridiculous to think that Obama would intentionally flaunt his cash just to piss people off, I would have to agree. It IS pretty gauche and inconsiderate that Obama would, however innocently, show such a wad of cash with the economic hard times that Americans are facing..."
    -Random Weigantian

    Now, is such a response simply too much to ask for around here???

    I'm just sayin'.....

    Michale..

  48. [48] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Romney campaign is abandoning trying to win on the Obama first term economy.

    I see no evidence of this.

    It might be wishful thinking on the part of the Left, but the facts show that one of Obama's MANY Achilles Heels is the economy...

    Bill Kristol went so far today as to say Obama turned the economy around "pretty well" given the crisis the inherited.

    That's one Lefty's opinion. Joe Sixpack is seeing gas prices DOUBLE under Obama and Median Family Income at it's LOWEST under Obama and will beg to differ...

    In Meteorology, what you are doing is called "Wishcasting"...

    It's definition is self-evident..

    Michale....

  49. [49] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    RE: Michale's linked photo of the President's wad.

    That really is funny. Writing stream of consciousness, here's what came into my mind:

    1. The scene in _My Cousin Vinny_ when the redneck loser of the pool game produces a wad of singles with a twenty wrapped around them as the payoff.

    2. Wondering if this was taken when he was paying for the burgers at that Unannounced the other day (fries really looked good).

    3. How the campaign breaks the isolation of the presidency. You can bet that if that's a credit card at the front of his wallet, it's a Campaign card, not his own. On a day-in-day-out basis, I'd bet that he has no cash on his person, or probably even in the residence (beyond that needed to give the girls their milk money in the morning ;-)

    But you're right; it looks bad, and you can bet that the takeaway for Mr. Obama is that the 20's go in the middle, and the 1's go on the outside.

  50. [50] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    Michale, did you see the news programs today? I'm reporting that, not making it up, or wishing it. That's what Kristol said, on Fox of all places. They realize they can't beat the President on the record.

    And by the way, when I used to post here, you were very reasoned. You seem to have slipped into ad hominem and histrionics. What happened?

  51. [51] 
    Michale wrote:

    1. The scene in _My Cousin Vinny_ when the redneck loser of the pool game produces a wad of singles with a twenty wrapped around them as the payoff.

    hehehehehehehehe

    MCV has to be one of the top ten comedies of all time!! :D

    But you're right; it looks bad, and you can bet that the takeaway for Mr. Obama is that the 20's go in the middle, and the 1's go on the outside.

    Now THIS is the kind of response I would expect from a Weigantian!!!!

    Please forgive the snooty tone in #48...

    Sometimes (often times) I am my own worst enemy... :D

    Michale......

  52. [52] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    Just want to say, I'm not running away from a discussion here, although I'm going silent for a few hours.

    Thinking about the burger and fries that were probably paid for with some of that cash has made me hungry, it's 5:30, and there's a Whataburger not too far away.

  53. [53] 
    Michale wrote:

    And by the way, when I used to post here, you were very reasoned. You seem to have slipped into ad hominem and histrionics. What happened?

    At the risk of appearing petulant and immature (too late!! :D) I honestly believe that, while I do concede my responsibility in the matter, it has mostly been in response to the unbelievable Obama-centric vibe emanating from the pages of Weigantia...

    The more and more Weigantia pulled to the Left, the harder and harder I fought to move to the Right..

    Like I said, I acknowledge my responsibility in this.. I see a Pro Obama missive and I automatically go into attack mode...

    But, in my defense, I would be a LOT more inclined to meet in the middle if I thought I would ever have any company there... :D

    Michale.....

  54. [54] 
    Michale wrote:

    Michale, did you see the news programs today? I'm reporting that, not making it up, or wishing it. That's what Kristol said, on Fox of all places. They realize they can't beat the President on the record.

    My "attack" was mis-directed..

    I should not have said that YOU are engaged in wishcasting..

    Apparently, it's Kristol and/or Team Obama is the one engaged in Wishcasting...

    My apologies..

    Michale....

  55. [55] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Amazing that CNN is still pushing the "video clip" hooey, even after Hillary was forced to admit it was a pre-planned, coordinated terrorist attack:

    "Stevens died on September 11, along with three other Americans, when the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi came under attack amid a large protest about a U.S.-made film that mocked the Muslim Prophet Mohammed." http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/22/world/africa/libya-ambassador-journal/index.html

  56. [56] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    Re: Chris1962 (I don't yet recall how to 'quote')

    To his credit, John McCain was calling it a coordinated terrorist group attack almost immediately, and someone else (I don't recall who) pointed out that demonstrators rarely bring rocket propelled grenades to demonstrations.

    It reminds me of the evening of 9/11 (though not in gravity, of course), when Gen. Wesley Clark was publicly calling it Al-Quida, even while the neo-cons were calling to beseech him to get behind the "Saddam" meme.

    At least in that case, the neo-cons had an agenda that (in their minds) would justify a false flag accusation. State Dept in this case: I don't see it.

  57. [57] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    RE: "At the risk of appearing petulant and immature (too late!! :D) it has mostly been in response to the unbelievable Obama-centric vibe emanating from the pages of Weigantia..."

    I'll take your assessment at face value, and then say, (in the immortal words of Chauncey Gardner): I understand.

    Among the circles and trials of hell, I believe there are these: for those fallen but rational, an eternity of either non-stop Fox and Friends, or alternatively, or perhaps alternating, Larry O'Donnell. This, because while yet alive, too much of either will cause most of us to begin to doubt our sanity and turn our moods to surly.

    While I support the President, you won't get unquestioned fan-boy defenses out of me. I hold several failings or repudiations of this administration to be egregious; not the least of which being in the area of financial markets reform and missed opportunities for economic recovery under the excuse of, or fear of, fragility of the financial system.

  58. [58] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    Before I forget: not directly related to the election, but to be filed under the political principle "Empires Abhor a Vacuum":

    http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/china/2012-09/23/c_131868282.htm

  59. [59] 
    Michale wrote:

    LB,

    To his credit, John McCain was calling it a coordinated terrorist group attack almost immediately, and someone else (I don't recall who) pointed out that demonstrators rarely bring rocket propelled grenades to demonstrations.

    Yea, it's hard to imagine how the Administration could hope to float the spin that this was simply a protest gone wrong...

    From DAY ONE, it was obvious this was a planned highly coordinated attack..

    What sealed it for me was learning that there was an initial attack, then a follow-up attack at the Safe House.. That kind of attack takes detailed planning and top secret intel...

    At least in that case, the neo-cons had an agenda that (in their minds) would justify a false flag accusation. State Dept in this case: I don't see it.

    It wasn't State's agenda, it was the Administration's.. Much like the underwear bomber, the White House didn't want to be seen as allowing a terrorist attack. It doesn't fit the spin..

    While I support the President, you won't get unquestioned fan-boy defenses out of me. I hold several failings or repudiations of this administration to be egregious; not the least of which being in the area of financial markets reform and missed opportunities for economic recovery under the excuse of, or fear of, fragility of the financial system.

    Many on here say the same. To be fair, I am sure it's (probably) even true...

    But it just seems to me that no one wants to air their Obama grievances.. I am not talking about the petty crap like Obama doesn't slam down the GOP enough, etc etc..

    I am talking about the real meat and potatoes stuff like Obama assassinating American citizens w/o due process or how Obama has increased domestic civilian surveillance a hundred-fold...

    Stuff that I KNOW that most everyone here really REALLY dislikes about Obama, but they are afraid to espouse.. Even when invited or prompted to.. What are Weigantians afraid of???

    It would actually be ironic... If anyone WOULD post such acidic comments, it would force me to actually DEFEND Obama!! :D Imagine that!! :D

    Your "yea that looks bad" is a perfect example of what I am talking about.. It shows that A> I am not crazy (always a plus for me :D) and 2> that you actually have a brain that can think outside dogmatic ideology..

    To very important aspects to health discussions... :D

    Before I forget: not directly related to the election, but to be filed under the political principle "Empires Abhor a Vacuum":

    http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/china/2012-09/23/c_131868282.htm

    Which illustrates the folly of pulling out of Afghanistan so precipitously..

    The Left is always obsessed with getting our troops home. They rarely stop to consider the danger of the Vacuum Principle...

    Iraq is a perfect example...

    "Good talk."
    -Dr Rodney McKay, STARGATE:ATLANTIS

    :D

    Michale....

  60. [60] 
    Michale wrote:

    On another note...

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-refers-israel-concern-over-iran-noise_652967.html

    It's "nice" to see that our President and Iranian President Achmedjihadist are on the same page as far as their disdain for Israel. :^/

    Seriously, though. While I don't think for a minute that Obama and Achmedjihadist are actually of the same mind about Israel (one wants Israel completely destroyed and the other just wants Israel to shut up and know her place) it IS disconcerting to see both leaders use the same tone and word to describe Israeli concerns..

    Bibi is not going to be none to happy to see this, that's for sure...

    Frankly, we (the US) don't DESERVE any loyalty from Israel, considering. Yea, I know, I know. All the billions in aid and weapons don't amount to a hill of beans if we allow so much daylight between us and Israel on issues related to her very survival...

    Michale.....

  61. [61] 
    Michale wrote:

    To very important aspects to health discussions... :D

    Errr, that would be healthY discussions.. :D

    Michale.....

  62. [62] 
    Michale wrote:

    Skewed and Unskewed Polls

    As I pointed out yesterday, the result of Romney’s “really bad week” was that Romney had gone from 5 or 6 points behind in Gallup, to essentially tied.

    http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/09/23/skewed-and-unskewed-polls/

    That's the point I have been trying to make.

    The Independents and NPAs by and large *agree* with Romney's assessment of the electorate...

    Despite claims from the Left (Hysterical and Otherwise) that the revelation hurt Romney, it's clear from the sentiment that the revelation actually HELPED Romney..

    This, of course, assumes you put any faith in polls.. :D

    Michale.....

  63. [63] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://www.unskewedpolls.com/

    "RELEASE THE HOUNDS!"
    -Montgomery Burns

    Let the howling commence!! :D

    Michale.....

  64. [64] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Interesting piece on how Obama would likely be a Conservative if he was a UK politician: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19577434

  65. [65] 
    Chris1962 wrote:
  66. [66] 
    Michale wrote:

    Republican poll analysis: Romney winning with middle-class families
    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/81584.html

    Another poll I am sure ya'all are going to hate.. :D

    Michale.....

  67. [67] 
    Michale wrote:

    CB,

    Ya gotta wonder if THESE are the polls Team Obama has been seeing that prompted Obama to start preparing his Hawaii retirement home.. :D

    Michale.....

  68. [68] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    I was just about to post that same poll. So much for O's claim to the middle class. Romney has a 14-point advantage. That's pretty hefty.

  69. [69] 
    Michale wrote:

    "Israel is ONE of our closest allies in the Middle East"
    -Barack Obama

    That says it all.....

    Michale......

  70. [70] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Yes all the polls, including Fox polls, are all part of the liberal media conspiracy. Romney is miles ahead and anything reporting something other than 'Romney is miles ahead, campaign team are sitting back sipping Champagne completely unified behind their candidate' is liberal media bias lol

  71. [71] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yes all the polls, including Fox polls, are all part of the liberal media conspiracy. Romney is miles ahead and anything reporting something other than 'Romney is miles ahead, campaign team are sitting back sipping Champagne completely unified behind their candidate' is liberal media bias lol

    Typical ploy...

    Resort to sarcasm when the FACTS (and the polls) are against you. :D

    No comments about how the polls are leaning, michty?? You sure have plenty to say when the polls say what you want to hear...

    When they paint a different picture, all you have is sarcastic hyperbole...

    Why IS that??

    Michale......

  72. [72] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Michale, like I've mentioned several times, I read the polls daily. Here's a summary for you:

    - In the national polls just now EVERY SINGLE pollster shows an Obama lead. Every single one. Even Rasmussen(!).
    - In the State-wide polls, Obama is ahead among EVERY SINGLE POLLSTER in Ohio, Virginia, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Nevada.
    - Obama is ahead on average in Florida, Iowa, New Hampshire, Colorado but not ahead in every poll released.
    - Romney is ahead among EVERY POLLSTER in Missouri, Arizone.
    - Romney is ahead on average in North Carolina.

    Now lets say the polls are well off and ALL the ones where Obama is ahead on average go Romney (Florida-Colorado listed above). Guess what? Romney still loses. This is why Romney is around 15-30% to win this election by most analysis. The general consensus is that Romney needs to destroy Obama in the first debate to reverse this kind of a deficit in 6 weeks...

    But I expect you to now resort to your 'but I don't trust polls/all the polls are biased' argument now...

  73. [73] 
    Michale wrote:

    But I expect you to now resort to your 'but I don't trust polls/all the polls are biased' argument now...

    Of course.. You see, *I* am consistent..

    Polls are crap because they can be skewed by the biases of the poll creators/takers...

    It's like having a drug addict run tests on pain medication.. The inherent and unavoidable bias makes the tests utterly useless..

    In shorter terms, is the GIGO principle..

    Garbage In, Garbage Out..

    The simple fact that you ignore the polls you DON'T like and only quote the polls you DO like simply proves my point...

    Michale.....

  74. [74] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://www.unskewedpolls.com/

    What do you say about THOSE polls, michty??? :D

    Michale.....

  75. [75] 
    Michale wrote:

    Polls had Carter winning over Reagan..

    Polls had Dukakis winning over Bush Sr

    Polls had Kerry winning over Bush Jr

    Polls had Clinton winning over Obama...

    Recent history is replete with know-nothing polls...

    But NOW the polls are accurate??? :D

    Michale......

  76. [76] 
    michty6 wrote:

    The simple fact that you ignore the polls you DON'T like and only quote the polls you DO like simply proves my point

    Lol nope. I mean I did put the part where I didn't do this in caps but I'll try it in caps, bold and italics to see if you get the msg: EVERY SINGLE POLLSTER Try reading my comment again and maybe reading this part!

    What do you say about THOSE polls, michty?

    I'd say calling them 'unskewed' when all they've done is taken polls and skewed them is lololol! Especially since they are using RASMUSSENS methodology to unskew them... Rasmussen, which says registered Republican voters are at an ALL TIME HIGH with a 4 point lead over Democrats when polling methodology has for years been that Democrats have an edge in registered voters. So yeh definitely not biased at all. I love how they even believe Fox's polls need to be 'unskewed' too!

    Recent history is replete with know-nothing polls...
    But NOW the polls are accurate?

    Nope again you completely misunderstand polls. Polls are going to show various things at various stages, that is natural - polls are subject to change. And the person who is ahead just now in the polls isn't going to win 100% of the time obviously.

    But let me put it this way: no candidate who has a lead in the polls the size Obama does this close to the election has EVER lost before. In fact, only Clinton/Reagan have had a lead this large at this stage in prior elections (Obama 2012 is even ahead of Obama 2008)...

    Of course this doesn't mean Obama will win; it does make him odds on favourite (more than 2-1 favourite by most estimates)

  77. [77] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    RE: post [75].

    Nate Silver over at fivethirtyeight as a discussion of this very issue this morning, with all results back to FDR.

    I generally defer to Silver's aggregation for my daily fix of polls. He's also very good with the March basketball tourney. Particularly if you bet over-under on the games ;-) This morning he sort of alluded to wishing this wasn't such a tight race, so he could get down to baseball.

  78. [78] 
    michty6 wrote:

    LB [77]

    I like Nate's analysis too. You should also check out the Princeton Election Consortium at http://election.princeton.edu/ - there is also a little mini-feud between him and Nate that you can sometimes see a little hint of in some of his blogs!

  79. [79] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Just a quick note on the "fair and balanced" fallacy.

    This idea of "fair and balanced" in the news (a conservative idea, btw) goes like this:

    The news should accurately report in equal portions the opinions of both Democrats and Republicans.

    So if Democrats report "blue" and Republicans report "red," the news should be exactly purple.

    This is, unfortunately, the type of news which has led to so ignorance in the U.S. This is the type of news responsible for some 20% of Americans thinking Barack Obama is a Muslim.

    I believe the news should be able to call poppycock when things are poppycock.

    A great example is this idea of Intelligent Design. No serious scientist believes in it. Yet to be "fair" to Republicans, it is reported as the Republican counterpoint to the scientific theory of evolution.

    Balderdash!

    And the news should be able to report this. Sadly, most news organizations seem too afraid of offending conservatives (or more likely their corporate advertising sponsors) to do much actual investigative reporting.

    I mean, why bother, when you can just print the latest Britney Spears gossip and attract more readers?

    -David

  80. [80] 
    Michale wrote:

    LB,

    This morning he sort of alluded to wishing this wasn't such a tight race, so he could get down to baseball.

    That's kinda my point. Michty quotes polls that say it ISN'T a tight race.. Some polls say it's a tight race, some polls say it's NOT a tight, in favor of Obama.

    Yet, NONE of the polls (sans the unskewed polls) are supported by other facts..

    That's why I don't believe ANY of the polls. Because they are not supported by factual reality..

    Romney makes a (according to the Hysterical and not so Hysterical Left) HUGE gaffe that the Left claims will DEVASTATE Romney..

    But the polls show a net GAIN for Romney..

    Obame scrooes the pooch repeatedly, yet NONE of it is reflected in any polls except the unskewed ones..

    So, while I think ALL polls are shit and have little if anything to do with reality, I would at least consider giving more credence to the ones that are supported by other facts...

    Michale.....

  81. [81] 
    Michale wrote:

    And the news should be able to report this. Sadly, most news organizations seem too afraid of offending conservatives (or more likely their corporate advertising sponsors) to do much actual investigative reporting.

    Just like most news services seem too afraid of offending the Left so they report a controversial scientific theory (Human Caused Global Warming Yet The Planet Is Cooling) as fact...

    No matter HOW you try to evade, the simple fact is, it works BOTH ways...

    You have ONE MSM outlet that obviously skews Right.

    The rest of the MSM skews Left..

    Yet, the ONE that skews Right STILL gives more air time to Leftys than ALL the other MSM outlets give to the Right *combined*...

    Michale....

  82. [82] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Romney makes a (according to the Hysterical and not so Hysterical Left) HUGE gaffe that the Left claims will DEVASTATE Romney..

    But the polls show a net GAIN for Romney

    Uhm nope, actually the opposite happened. Here is the Obama lead from RCP - as you can see pre 47%gate (which was Sept 17th) it was decreasing then post 47%gate it begins to increase again:
    - Sept 12 - +3.5
    - Sept 15 - +3.1
    - Sept 18 - +2.8
    - Sept 21 - +3.5
    - Sept 24 - +3.7

  83. [83] 
    Michale wrote:

    “Oh I think that, you know, as president I bear responsibility for everything--to some degree.”
    -President Barack Obama

    Now we know why Obama doesn't like to do interviews with REAL reporters..

    He's constantly sticking his foot in his mouth...

    Michale.....

  84. [84] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Me [72] But I expect you to now resort to your 'but I don't trust polls/all the polls are biased' argument now...

    Michale [80] right on cue That's why I don't believe ANY of the polls. Because they are not supported by factual reality.

  85. [85] 
    Michale wrote:

    Uhm nope, actually the opposite happened. Here is the Obama lead from RCP - as you can see pre 47%gate (which was Sept 17th) it was decreasing then post 47%gate it begins to increase again:

    And *I* can find polls that "prove" my statement is completely true..

    Once again, you (inadvertently, I am sure :D) prove my point about how polls are shit...

    The difference between you and me is that I think ALL polls are shit but you think only the polls that say what you don't like are shit... :D

    Once again showing who is REALLY biased and who isn't.. :D

    Michale.....

  86. [86] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Michale

    And *I* can find polls that "prove" my statement is completely true..

    I didn't find a single poll, I used the average of polls as I always do.

    The difference between you and me is that I think ALL polls are shit but you think only the polls that say what you don't like are shit... :D

    I'm sure you're just saying this to wind me up and you're not completely blind to every word I've written so I'll let it pass. The funny thing is it's not me who believes this but you, quoting you from [80]:

    "So, while I think ALL polls are shit and have little if anything to do with reality, I would at least consider giving more credence to the ones that are supported by other facts."

    i.e. if the poll fits in with your biased view of the world ('Obama is an evil usurper'), you'll give it more credence lolol.

  87. [87] 
    Michale wrote:

    I didn't find a single poll, I used the average of polls as I always do.

    So, we're back to this again..

    Gallup?? Rasmussen??

    i.e. if the poll fits in with your biased view of the world ('Obama is an evil usurper'), you'll give it more credence lolol

    Nope.. That's just icing on the cake..

    If the polls have supporting facts, THEN I *might* give them a smidgen more credence....

    The unskewed polls DO have supporting facts. All of Obama's bonehead moves and statements the last couple weeks. The report that an Obama rep is scouting a new house in Hawaii for occupancy in Jan of 2013, because of Team Obama's internal polling.

    This is called supporting evidence.. Being a trained investigator, I look at ALL the available evidence, not just evidence that backs up what I want to believe..

    Like SOME people around here. :D

    Michale.....

  88. [88] 
    Michale wrote:

    Looks like Elizabeth Warren's goose is cooked...

    http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/09/elizabeth-warrens-law-license-problem/

    Scott Brown will win the election..

    Michale......

  89. [89] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Lololol amazing.

    Me: " if the poll fits in with your biased view of the world ('Obama is an evil usurper'), you'll give it more credence"

    Michale: "The unskewed polls DO have supporting facts. All of Obama's bonehead moves and statements the last couple weeks."

    Lolol well played.

  90. [90] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    Two essential problems with polls combine to make it patently impossible to identify the relevant statistical population. The two major, insurmountable problems are inaccurate self-identification (are you a likely voter?), and communication mode bias (cells phones?, also 'Dewey Defeats Truman').

    Add presentation-induced bias to those ("Given how much the President has damaged national security...") and the science of sampling and statistics become an exercise overlain (overlaid? I'll be laid in my grave before I ever know for sure) with sampling variations that can be of a magnitude greater than the true, but unknowable, population difference.

    The first will never go away; the second problem might.

    The third is the meat and potatoes of partisan hacks, and often deliberately sought out by the campaigns. As is clear from the depth of discussion here, poll results can and are used as a motivating force to add to the stew of the suasion.

  91. [91] 
    Michale wrote:

    LB,

    My reasoning exactly..

    As you so illustriously point out, there are many many many MANY ways that polls can go wrong and very very very VERY few ways that polls can get it right..

    NO ONE has ever gone broke betting on the fallibility of polls...

    As is clear from the depth of discussion here, poll results can and are used as a motivating force to add to the stew of the suasion.

    I just LOVE your word usage.. :D

    "She doesn't even have a Sega! She's such a troglodyte."
    "Cruel. But good word usage."

    -Jurassic Park II

    :D

    Michale.....

  92. [92] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Just like most news services seem too afraid of offending the Left so they report a controversial scientific theory (Human Caused Global Warming Yet The Planet Is Cooling) as fact.

    Exactly my point. This theory isn't controversial in the scientific community.

    Only in the political one.

    -David

    p.s. BTW, if the planet is cooling, how come the arctic ice cap is melting?

    http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Ra14mEm1Gmk/TcDEKdHModI/AAAAAAAABE4/OrVJTehVoSc/s1600/arctic_ice-melting.jpg

  93. [93] 
    Michale wrote:

    Exactly my point. This theory isn't controversial in the scientific community.

    Oh bullcarp...

    The hell it ain't...

    But that's a discussion best left alone.. :D

    p.s. BTW, if the planet is cooling, how come the arctic ice cap is melting?

    p.s. If the planet is warming, how come the ANTarctic Ice Cap is growing??

    http://www.climatecentral.org/news/forget-the-melting-arctic-the-sea-ice-in-antarctica-is-growing-skeptics-say-15032

    :D

    Like I have always said.. I can match you one for one all day long...

    That's why it's common knowledge amongst those WITHOUT an agenda that that the *theory* of Human Caused Global Warming (Yet The Planet Is Cooling) IS in dispute..

    Even amongst scientists.. ESPECIALLY amongst scientists...

    But, like I said, this is probably a discussion best saved for another place and time..

    Please... :D

    Michale.....

  94. [94] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    RE: "BTW, if the planet is cooling, how come the arctic ice cap is melting?"

    Because the oceans are big and there are two hemispheres over which to integrate the termperature gradients.

    Actually, I had a bet - which I lost - with a climate denier this year. It was that there would be NO connected polar ice below 80N, west of 20W, by Sept 21. I lost it only because the cap didn't release in the Queen Elizabeth islands, at about 120W.

    The arbiter of the bet were these NOAA reports, taken at 3-day intervals : http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/ml/ocean/sst/anomaly.html

    It was close enough that we're probably going to be in for a doozy of a winter as the jet stream snakes to nearly north-south alignments.

    Did humans cause this? I don't know. Ask the politicians. All I know is that it ain't good.

  95. [95] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Did you even read your own article?

    "The first is that the one percent growth per decade in the Antarctic pales next to the much faster 15.5 percent drop per decade in the Arctic. They aren’t even in the same ballpark."

    "Not only that: while the sea ice bordering Antarctica has been growing slightly, the massive ice sheets that sit directly atop the frozen continent are shrinking, at an accelerating rate."

    "Still, if the planet is warming, how can the sea ice be expanding in the waters surrounding Antarctica in the first place? Keeping in mind that it isn’t expanding by much, scientists offer several possible explanations. One is that there’s been more precipitation in recent decades (which itself could well be due to global warming). That puts a cap of relatively fresh water atop the denser, saltier water below, and in winter, when that top layer cools, it stays on top rather than mixing with the warmer water underneath, thus encouraging the growth of ice.

    Another factor may be the ozone hole that opens up at this time every year over the South Pole. Ozone loss tends to cool the upper atmosphere — an effect that percolates down to the surface."

    But I'm sure you'll come up with some other "scientific" explanation ... :)

    -David

  96. [96] 
    Michale wrote:

    The ONLY claim that I make is one that is easily provable..

    The science is in dispute.

    This claim is supported by the fact that, in the 20-30 (more??) years that the Human Caused Global Warming (Yet The Planet Is Cooling) theory has been the cause celebre' of choice, not ONE model, not ONE prediction has turned out to be accurate...

    HUNDREDS of BILLIONS of dollars have been bandied about, put into ALL this "research" and NOT ONE SINGLE MODEL has panned out.

    NOT ONE SINGLE PREDICTION has *ever* come true..

    On the other hand, there have been DOZENS and DOZENS of theories, predictions and models that have been proven COMPLETELY and UTTERLY false. Some of them LAUGHABLY so....

    Given ALL of these FACTS, I find it hard to believe that ANYONE with more than two brain cells to rub together would buy into this theory...

    Ya see why I really want to change the subject??? :D Because this discussion turns me into MORE of an arrogant prick than any other. If that's possible.. :D

    Michale....

  97. [97] 
    Michale wrote:

    Did humans cause this? I don't know. Ask the politicians. All I know is that it ain't good.

    That's kinda my position...

    If ya frame this discussion as pollution is bad and we need to combat that, then I am there..

    If we frame the discussion as we need to expand alternative energy sources to get off the Oil Addiction, I all for it......

    But if ya tell me that the world is going to end so we MUST destroy our economy so as to make the likes of Al Gore and Richard Branson richer???

    Scrooo that.....

    Michale.....

  98. [98] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    Beyond the ozone, one other factor that suggests continued warming, in this hemisphere at least, is the reduction in albedo (how much light is reflected back up) due to polar cap loss. If you look at those charts in the NOAA link I posted above, the water below 80N is anomalously warm. The reason is that the sun gives, very constantly, 1400 watts of energy per square yard (okay, "meter"), but ice reflects it back out more than does water.

    So the water heats up, the cap doesn't re-form as deeply nor as expansively, so next year...

  99. [99] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Two essential problems with polls combine to make it patently impossible to identify the relevant statistical population. The two major, insurmountable problems are inaccurate self-identification (are you a likely voter?), and communication mode bias (cells phones?

    I think the problem these days is a flood of polling, with some conducted by true pros and others, not so much. A good polling org will constantly check self-identification. Rasmussen and Gallup conduct a check on an ongoing basis. Rasmussen posts theirs monthly; Gallup, every six months, or so.

    As for Likely Voters, there are all different systems for identifying who's most likely to show up on election day. Some pollsters build up a pool of respondents, whom they put through a pretty thorough questionnaire about their voting record, dating back six or eight years. And then they do the questionnaire a second time, a couple of weeks later, to see if the respondent gives the same answers, which goes far in eliminating phonies from the pool. There are all sorts of tricks of the trade. It just depends on how good the polling org is, and how dedicated they are to building a good reputation for accuracy.

    As for cellphones, all good polling orgs have addressed that problem in one way or another. One way is that same pool method, where the org just asks the respondent for their cell phone number in the screening phase and they build a cell-user database from it. And any good, reliable polling org, who publishes their polling results, will include at least some kind of description regarding their methodology. They don't give all their trade secrets away to the competition, in the process, but the reader gets to know that they have a system in place, and a percentage of accuracy is usually included.

    And the final check of a pollster's accuracy, of course, is election day results, and exit polls. If a pollster calls it, within the MoE, year after year, that's a reliable pollster. Some have even called it within a fraction of a percentage.

    The trick is to take the time to read the actual polls (provided the pollster even provides them) and check for over-sampling, using Rasmussen's or Gallup's surveys as a guide — and also to bear in mind that the "undecideds" generally break for the challenger. Add that in if you want a clearer sense of who's actually ahead. That's why they always say that if an incumbent isn't pulling over 50%, they're in trouble.

  100. [100] 
    Michale wrote:

    Whoaa!!!!

    http://www.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeedpolitics/hillary-clinton-aide-tells-reporter-to-fuck-off

    Looks like someone in the Obama Administration is a tad touchy about the BS the Administration has been spewing.. :D

    Michale.....

  101. [101] 
    michty6 wrote:

    My view on global warming/climate change is simple: there is a >0% chance it is human caused.

    You can debate the probability all you like, but if there is a >0% chance that something human caused will cause considerable damage to the planet or potentially destroy the planet then I'm always going to vote on the side of taking measures to stop it.

    Add in the fact that fossil fuels are finite and we'll have to stop using them at some point anyway, that makes the decision to stop using then now even easier...

  102. [102] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    "If we frame the discussion as we need to expand alternative energy sources to get off the Oil Addiction, I all for it......"

    This is one where I'm probably going to go way against the house here. The fact is that there is no store of easily, safely transportable energy that carries anything close to the BTU content of oil. Except for one source: electricity.

    But there are problems with electricity.

    While you can transport it, most requirements for mechanical power are mobile. So you have the "extension cord" problem, or the battery net efficiency - translating to productive efficiency - problem.

    Second, unlike the release of the power of "ancient sunlight" in oil, you have to generate electricity. Which poison are you going to choose to do that?

    The last thing I want to do is get into a "peak oil" discussion. But everybody, from fracking wildcatters to academic futurists, can agree on the fact that the world is way past the peak of NET recoverable energy (energy recovered less energy cost to recover it), and, thus, way past the peak of CHEAP energy.

    So, in my mind, the planet is going to have to continue to rely - not exclusively, but fundamentally - on oil. We will continue to see, and be forced to absorb, increases in costs, in environmental damage, in market force rationing of products, in changes in social organization, and in economic competition for resources.

    These will be, in various guise and with various stalking horses, at the center of the political debate for the rest of this century.

  103. [103] 
    michty6 wrote:

    From me in [72]

    - Romney is ahead on average in North Carolina

    Update: He's not ahead on average in NC anymore. Oh dear. Romney isn't ahead in any battleground State now. Only Missouri and Arizona (for those counting these as battleground States).

  104. [104] 
    Michale wrote:

    You can debate the probability all you like, but if there is a >0% chance that something human caused will cause considerable damage to the planet or potentially destroy the planet then I'm always going to vote on the side of taking measures to stop it.

    I can agree with your >0% theory, but consider this..

    Postulate a scenario where there is a 3% chance that mankind will destroy the planet in the next thousand years by pollution and ozone depletion, unless something is done..

    BUT...

    The something that must be done has a 90% chance of utterly destroying the world economies in a matter of years......

    "What do you do?? What DO you do??"
    -SPEED

    Hay, you wanted to play the "what if" game, not me... :D

    Michale....

  105. [105] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    I was just closing browser tabs, deciding I had better get some work done, and on TPM, saw this headline: "Paul Ryan Rebuffs Critics: Conservatives Complain By Nature."

    HA. And liberals complain by nature, too. And undecideds, probably, even if only because Honey Boo Boo might be pre-empted by election coverage in November.

    So who does that leave? Ghandi and Mother Theresa. And they're both dead. Good news for the blogs, though.

  106. [106] 
    Michale wrote:

    I misspoke in that comment.

    There is simply NO POSSIBLE way that humans can destroy the planet..

    NO.... POSSIBLE.... WAY.....

    Michale......

  107. [107] 
    akadjian wrote:

    NOT ONE SINGLE PREDICTION has *ever* come true.

    I believe they predicted the melting of the polar ice caps. 30+ years ago. Quite impressive at the time.

    But if ya tell me that the world is going to end so we MUST destroy our economy so as to make the likes of Al Gore and Richard Branson richer?

    The trap you're falling into here is the argument that dealing w/ global warming would destroy the economy.

    It would simply change the economy. There would likely be more opportunity in alternative energies and things like cleaner manufacturing. And less opportunity in dirtier technologies.

    I don't see this as a bad thing. And I'm not sure why you have to bring Al Gore into it - unless it's to introduce that political element which isn't found in the scientific community.

    If we frame the discussion as we need to expand alternative energy sources to get off the Oil Addiction, I all for it.

    Me too!

    Honestly, I'm not quite sure what you're so angry about when it comes to this discussion.

    The beauty of science is that it doesn't get angry.

    -David

  108. [108] 
    akadjian wrote:

    I was just closing browser tabs, deciding I had better get some work done, and on TPM, saw this headline: "Paul Ryan Rebuffs Critics: Conservatives Complain By Nature."

    I saw that this morn too, LB. I thought it was hilarious without even reading the article!

    -David

  109. [109] 
    Michale wrote:

    This is one where I'm probably going to go way against the house here. The fact is that there is no store of easily, safely transportable energy that carries anything close to the BTU content of oil.

    I would agree with this, as far as it goes..

    There isn't anyway to safely transport alternative forms energy to those who need it..

    But what about provisioning so that those who don't NEED to transport it can utilize alternate forms of energy???

    When one considers the hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars that has been spent on lawyers and lobbying for the Human Cause Global Warming (Yet The Planet Is Cooling) theory, just imagine how better utilized that money COULD have been..

    I have been looking into this. A completely independent (yet grid-tied) solar powered system for my home is going to cost around $30K.. That's in today's market..

    Now, imagine if those hundreds of billions of dollars generating hot air would have been put towards equipping qualified homes with solar power systems..

    Not only would this have put a HUGE dent in our national energy consumption, it would have ALSO funded further R&D that would make such systems CHEAPER and more effecient...

    Now THAT's a program that EVERYONE on the planet could get behind...

    Everyone except the lobbyists and the laywers and the Al Gores and the Richard Bransons...

    You see my point??

    If Human Cause Global Warming is such a dire threat as the Hysterical Left wants us to believe it is, why spend billions TALKING about it?? Why not spend those billions DOING something about it???

    Michale.....

  110. [110] 
    Michale wrote:

    I believe they predicted the melting of the polar ice caps. 30+ years ago. Quite impressive at the time.

    And yet.. The ice caps are STILL there...

    That's like me saying, "In 30 years, it's going to rain"...

    Now, what are the odds that, in 2042, it's going to rain??? :D

    Shit, I'll be 80 years old!! :D

    It would simply change the economy. There would likely be more opportunity in alternative energies and things like cleaner manufacturing. And less opportunity in dirtier technologies.

    And it's just as likely, with human nature being the way it is, that it WOULDN'T be the utopia you envision...

    And what if you're wrong???

    50 years ago, a new ICE AGE was the big scare.. What if actions were taken BACK THEN to heat the planet??

    Even if we DID have the technology to affect climate (which we don't), we don't have enough solid facts to go futzing around with the climate..

    Honestly, I'm not quite sure what you're so angry about when it comes to this discussion.

    The beauty of science is that it doesn't get angry.

    Because you are not talking science..

    You're talking politics....

    And politics ALWAYS makes me angry...

    "Mr McGee. Don't make me angry.. You wouldn't like me when I'm angry."
    -Dr David Banner

    :D

    Michale.....

  111. [111] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    @[103]: "Only Missouri and Arizona (for those counting these as battleground States)."

    Personally, I don't think of them as battleground states. I think of them as battleSHIP states. The USS Arizona was among the first ships sunk in WWII, and the surrender of Japan was signed on the deck of the USS Missouri.

    To me, battleground is OH and FL. Put them (or the equivalent electoral BTUs) outside of the margin of bickering, put the ground game in place to ensure the turnout, and Nate Silver can get to baseball while there's still time.

    Okay, that's it. I used lunch as a procrastination, but now there's none left.

  112. [112] 
    Michale wrote:

    I don't see this as a bad thing. And I'm not sure why you have to bring Al Gore into it - unless it's to introduce that political element which isn't found in the scientific community.

    I think I just pee'ed myself, I laughed so hard at this comment.. :D

    While I would agree with you if you had said that a political element should NOT be found in science, it's completely naive to think that there is no politics in the "science" of Human Caused Global Warming (Yet The Planet Is Cooling)..

    Human Caused Global Warming (Yet The Planet Is Cooling) is the EPITOME of Policy Based Evidence Making...

    If it were TRUE science then the science that DISPROVES the theory of Human Caused Global Warming (Yet The Planet Is Cooling) would be given equal weight to the science that SUPPORTS the Human Caused Global Warming (Yet The Planet Is Cooling) theory...

    As evidenced by this thread, it's clear that such is not the case...

    Ergo, Human Caused Global Warming (Yet The Planet Is Cooling) is politics.. NOT science...

    Michale.....

  113. [113] 
    Michale wrote:

    A terrorist attack on our Consulate, our Ambassador murdered. 3 other Americans murdered..

    "It's a bump in the road.."
    -President Barack Obama

    Let the spin begin...

    Michale.....

  114. [114] 
    akadjian wrote:

    That's like me saying, "In 30 years, it's going to rain".

    No, it's not.

    It's like scientists saying that in 30 years, something which has been around for millions of years will be disappearing and may very soon no longer be there.

    You're talking politics.

    I can't be. I'm not angry :)

    By your own admission, you're the angry one talking politics.


    If it were TRUE science then the science that DISPROVES the theory of Human Caused Global Warming (Yet The Planet Is Cooling) would be given equal weight to the science that SUPPORTS the Human Caused Global Warming (Yet The Planet Is Cooling) theory.

    If there were equal evidence, science would give the arguments equal weight.

    But there's not.

    Science doesn't give equal weight to conservative vs. liberal arguments. Only our news does.

    But this is becoming a circular discussion.

    You'll never be convinced, Michale. Of that, we know.

    So I'll leave you to your Al Gore liberal hating.

    -David

  115. [115] 
    Michale wrote:

    If there were equal evidence, science would give the arguments equal weight.

    It's only un-equal, based on the limited criteria..

    IE:

    No REAL science would claim that the Human Caused Global Warming (Yet The Planet Is Cooling) theory would be false.

    Therefore, ANY science that MAKES that claim CANNOT be "real" science..

    Rule #1: A =! B...
    Rule #2: If A = B refer #1

    It's a self-fulfilling delusion that has absolutely NOTHING to do with science and everything to do with dogmatic law..

    You'll never be convinced, Michale. Of that, we know.

    The same could be said for you, my friend.. :D

    The difference is, I can concede that I *could* be wrong..

    Can you do the same?? :D

    Michale

  116. [116] 
    Michale wrote:

    But, let's get back to Obama's bump in the road..

    Michale.....

  117. [117] 
    akadjian wrote:

    It's only un-equal, based on the limited criteria.

    It's unequal based on scientific criteria.

    The same could be said for you, my friend.. :D

    If the science shows me a theory is incorrect, I'm more than willing to advance with the science.

    Newton was pretty good and all, but Einstein, that guy was a genius :)

    -David

  118. [118] 
    Michale wrote:

    If the science shows me a theory is incorrect, I'm more than willing to advance with the science.

    THAT's the problem.

    You don't BELIEVE the science that SHOWS that the theory may be incorrect...

    Therefore, you will never have to question your own beliefs...

    The science that disputes the theory is JUST as valid and JUST as sincere as the science that supports the theory. Probably a LOT more sincere...

    But, since your view is that any science that disputes the theory CANNOT be "real" science, you will never have to consider that you MAY be wrong...

    Like I said, it's a self-fulfilling prophecy of delusion...

    It's like a thousand years ago, people believed that the world was flat.

    Any "science" that disputed that theory WASN'T "really" science, so the delusion persisted..

    It was only when people started to wake up and think, "hmmmmm... Maybe the original science was flawed" that progress is made..

    That's where we are with the Human Caused Global Warming (Yet The Planet Is Cooling) theory..

    TENS of THOUSANDS of scientists are saying, "Hmmmmm Maybe the original science is flawed"...

    And we will soon evolve out of this current scientific "theory" which is, in the here and now, more politics than science....

    Now... How about them bumps in the road??? :D

    Michale.....

  119. [119] 
    akadjian wrote:

    The science that disputes the theory is JUST as valid and JUST as sincere as the science that supports the theory.

    I'm sure it's sincere.

    But sincere isn't science.

    I haven't seen any peer reviewed science which has been accepted by the scientific community as valid which disproves the theory.

    This is how science works. People publish theories and they are peer reviewed by other scientists and tested for validity and only once they've been accepted by the scientific community are they judged credible.

    The deniers typically find a Ph.D., pay them to say something denying the science, and then claim that it's science.

    Here's my favorite example ...

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-AyDtD6sPA&feature=player_embedded#at=28

    Sounds convincing on the surface, no?

    The theory of global warming has been around for a long time and the scientific community has had many, many chance to review and evaluate it. It's been refined over the years and expanded on, but I haven't seen any refutation pass the scientific community test.

    -David

    p.s. BTW- TENS of THOUSANDS of scientists ... LOL ... that's a good one. Where do you get this stuff?

  120. [120] 
    akadjian wrote:

    When even former Koch employees are stating that the theory has merit, maybe, just maybe ...

    http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2012/0730/Prominent-climate-change-denier-now-admits-he-was-wrong-video

  121. [121] 
    michty6 wrote:

    You guys are wasting your time. Michale doesn't believe in science, studies, polls or any such things. He goes with his gut instinct. And his gut instinct is telling him Global Warming is a myth and Obama is going to lose in a landslide ;)

  122. [122] 
    Michale wrote:

    This is why I don't debate the Human Caused Global Warming (Yet The Planet Is Cooling) theory...

    It's like trying to convince a religious person that there is no god... (There isn't, by the bi..)

    They have their beliefs and absolutely NO amount of facts or science will dissuade them...

    Ya think I would learn.... :D

    Michale.....

  123. [123] 
    Michale wrote:

    And there is michty right on cue with nothing to offer except sarcasm and Obama Kool Aid.....

    So predictable....

    Michale....

  124. [124] 
    Michale wrote:

    50 years ago, scientists were JUST as convinced that the planet was heading for a new Ice Age....

    Today, they are laughed at..

    50 years from now, today's scientists will also be laughed at.. :D

    Michale......

  125. [125] 
    Michale wrote:

    Of course, no one wants to talk about Obama's bumps in the road...

    Geee, color me surprised.... :D

    Michale.....

  126. [126] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Yes no-one wants to talk about a subject which you've ranted your biased, bigoted opinion about in other threads - shock, horror!

  127. [127] 
    akadjian wrote:

    He goes with his gut instinct. And his gut instinct is telling him Global Warming is a myth and Obama is going to lose in a landslide.

    Believe it or not, michty, I give Michale a lot more credit than this.

    I believe Michale thinks that any attempts to deal with global warming are going to hurt our economy. This seems to be his underlying motivation.

    I don't believe this is true, but I can see why he thinks this.

    If my assumption is correct, we now know what he's fighting for.

    I also believe that Michale excels at tactics of war. I will include psychological tactics here as well.

    The battle is lined up, he knows what side he's on, now the only purpose is to defeat the enemy.

    Towards this end he uses (quite skillfully, I might add) tactics such as liberal baiting and ad hominem attacks to fight the good fight.

    I say all this out of respect because I think most liberals misjudge conservatives. They tend to think that conservatives somehow don't get it. On the contrary, I think Michale is extremely smart. I've learned never to underestimate his intelligence.

    I think Michale has simply made the calculation that if he uses these tactics, he will win.

    And he's quite a skilled tactician.

    It's just quite ironic because I don't feel as if I'm in a fight. At least not with Michale.

    -David

  128. [128] 
    Michale wrote:

    Awwww now how can I respond to that!!??

    Yer excellent at the KillThemWithKindness tactic, David!!! :D

    Actually, I don't much care about the economy.

    I have "an overwhelming desire to face the end of the world"... :D

    I just don't like to be played for a fool..

    Ironically enough, this explains both my animosity to Obama AND to the ridiculous Human Caused Global Warming (Yet The Planet Is Cooling) theory...

    Speaking of the end of the world, did you catch the season premiere of REVOLUTION??

    Looks pretty promising, but I have a bad feeling it might go the way of TERRA NOVA

    A great show, with great potential, but just too expensive...

    Michale.....

  129. [129] 
    Michale wrote:

    Towards this end he uses (quite skillfully, I might add) tactics such as liberal baiting and ad hominem attacks to fight the good fight.

    I am also constrained to point out that I DON'T use these tactics.. At least not in the Human Caused Global Warming (Yet The Planet Is Cooling) debate.

    In fact, those tactics seem to come from ya'all, when ya call into question the veracity and integrity of those scientists who dispute the Human Caused Global Warming (Yet The Planet Is Cooling) theory..

    As far as debating about the incompetence of Obama??

    Yea, sometimes... :D

    Michale.....

  130. [130] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yes no-one wants to talk about a subject which you've ranted your biased, bigoted opinion about in other threads - shock, horror!

    Speaking of ad hominem attacks....

    Seems to be that's all we see, rather than address the FACTS of how OUR President can refer to a terrorist attack that kills OUR Ambassador and OUR fellow Americans as a "bump in the road"...

    Do I need to bother pointing out how ya'all would have reacted if a GOP President had said something so completely and utterly insensitive and cold??

    Michale.....

  131. [131] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Michale,
    Please explain, since you are so offended by it, why him saying this was bad and what he should've said instead...?

    David,
    I think Michale believes Global Warming is just part of the liberal media conspiracy in America (and the world). It's the same on most issues: evidence in support = liberal media bias; evidence against = the truth!

  132. [132] 
    Michale wrote:

    Please explain, since you are so offended by it, why him saying this was bad and what he should've said instead...?

    Yer kidding, right???

    If I have to explain it, it's clear you would NEVER understand...

    I think Michale believes Global Warming is just part of the liberal media conspiracy in America

    Nope.. I think it's a blatant attempt to use biased psuedo-science to TRY and be relevant in a country and a time when people are sick and tired of this kind of crap...

    The "THE SKY IS FALLING" crap gets REALLY old, REALLY fast...

    Especially since NOT ONE SINGLE prediction, NOT ONE SINGLE model has EVER come to pass...

    NOT ONE.....

    In fact, many of the models and predictions have been LAUGHINGLY disproved.. Himalayan Ice Free Mountains anyone??? Polar Bears nearing Extinction anyone?? Mount Killamanjaroo No Snow anyone?? Robins in Canada anyone? And so on and so on and so on....

    What is so amazing is that after ALL the bum calls, after ALL the bogus claims, after ALL the outright fraud, there are actually people who STILL buy into the Human Caused Global Warming (Yet The Planet Is Cooling) con...

    I guess PT Barnum was right...

    This is all I am going to say about that subject tonight.. Hopefully for the rest of this commentary...

    Michale....

  133. [133] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Lol you, Rush and Fox are really struggling if this 'bump in the road' is all you've got.

    What happened to the President's record being so bad?? Apparently the 'President's record is bad' means continuing to politicize the killing of a US Ambassador and bringing up more 14 year old videos... So Rush/Fox/Romney/Michale have really reached desperation point.

  134. [134] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Didn't realise but on RCP you can actually see how close the RCP Average was to previous results. eg. 2008 - http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html

  135. [135] 
    michty6 wrote:
  136. [136] 
    Michale wrote:

    Veterans retreating from Barack Obama
    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/81616.html?hp=t1

    Americans are abandoning Obama in droves..

    But, keep quoting those useless polls..

    Right up until election day, if you want..

    It will just make my last laugh all the more enjoyable... :D

    Michale......

  137. [137] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Lol yes just ignore the how close the RCP Average has been in previous years (see [134], [135]). Head in the sand is the best way to deal with bad news - not acknowledging that maybe your candidate is extremely flawed and everyone knows it.

  138. [138] 
    akadjian wrote:

    I think it's a blatant attempt to use biased psuedo-science to TRY and be relevant in a country and a time when people are sick and tired of this kind of crap.

    Well, I stand corrected. I'll drop it though.

    Just one last quote ...

    Judging by the pollution content of the atmosphere, I believe we have arrived at the late twentieth century.
    --Spock, The Voyage Home

  139. [139] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    michty6 [10]: "Reid should be apologizing as, even though we don't know how much Romney paid in taxes"

    With all due respect, Sen. Reid doesn't have to apologize. He was the Designed Troll.

    He did what every good troll does and, BTW, took a play right out of the Birther Handbook (Fox Edition): yell something preposterous at the top of your lungs, and continue to yell it. While it will fade into the background noise with the public, there's a chance that the other side will get sick of it or worried about it sticking, and actually try to refute it.

    If you do that, you've done just what the Troll set out to accomplish, which is put whatever it is back center stage, where they can start to pick at the edges, try to make you look like a jerk or a crook for not responding sooner, and burn up a couple of your news cycles.

    I hate to say it, but there's no honor here, in either camp; it's campaign politics. Harry Reid is among the best journeyman politicians alive; it's why he has his job.

  140. [140] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    Ah, I've been whacked by spell checking. That should read "Designated Troll."

  141. [141] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    [125] "Of course, no one wants to talk about Obama's bumps in the road..."

    Honestly, I don't know what to make of this. The time line puts the attack at around 6 EST the night of the 11th, the confirmation of the deaths in the late evening, and the interview was the morning of the 12th.

    There's a lot of questions here:

    Why did the 60 Minutes guy not bring up the fact that a US ambassador had been killed?

    Why did the President not bring it up?

    Why did the administration continue to refuse to embrace the reality of the attack?

    Why did the US use surrogates (aka Libyans) to hit the terrorist base when there are a lot of Recon Marines a short helicopter ride away (they have a different acronym for the units; the 'new' units don't have battalion flags featuring skulls with three bullet holes in them like the Recons')

    There's something here we don't know...

  142. [142] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    (Con't).

    Regardless of what the reasons or diplomacy underpinning this thing, "bump in the road" needed to go below the fold until the news cycles naturally re-bury it. Here's how that's going to be done:

    "Obama May Do Social Security Reform During Lame Duck Session, Senate Democrats Worry"

  143. [143] 
    Michale wrote:

    LB,

    While those are all good questions, I think you missed why all Americans should be pissed at that comment..

    "Surfing a 30 foot wave in Waimea is cool, dating a super model is cool. THIS is not cool!!!"
    -Lt Col John Shepard, STARGATE: ATLANTIS, The Last Man

    The idea that the brutal murder of our Ambassador and 3 of our citizens is simply a "bump in the road" indicates that Obama has a mindset that all Americans would find disgusting and appalling..

    Now, if Obama simply misspoke, then that's one thing. Then he should state so...

    As far as your points go, as I said, they are very good questions..

    This entire Libya debacle would seem to put to rest the claims of the Left that Obama is some kind of Foreign Policy wunderkind...

    Michale.....

  144. [144] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well, I stand corrected. I'll drop it though.

    Kudos on the quote. :D

    And I'll let you have the last word on it.

    "Just for that, I'll let you have the last word"
    "Thank you."
    "You're welcome"

    -M*A*S*H

    :D

    Michale...

  145. [145] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IB7NDUSBOo

    hehehehehehehehehehehehehe

    Regardless of your politics, THAT was funny!! :D

    Michale.....

  146. [146] 
    Michale wrote:

    not acknowledging that maybe your candidate is extremely flawed and everyone knows it.

    Once again, you are ignoring reality..

    I have ALWAYS acknowledged that *THE* GOP candidate was flawed. I have never claimed anything else.

    But, and this is documented fact, YOUR candidate is 10 times more flawed than the GOP candidate..

    And THAT is why YOUR candidate is going to lose..

    Dukakis supporters quoted polls. He lost.

    Kerry supporters quoted polls. He lost.

    Carter supporters quoted polls. HE lost.

    Mondale supporters quoted polls. HE lost.

    Clinton supporters quoted polls. SHE lost..

    You seeing the pattern???

    Let me say this really slow, so as to aid in your comprehension...

    POLLS.... DON'T.... MEAN.... SHIT.......

    The fact that you ONLY quote polls that say what you want to hear is proof positive of this...

    Michale......

  147. [147] 
    Michale wrote:

    "I got kicked off the high school debate team for saying "Yeah?! Well, fuck you!!" I thought I'd won. The other kid was speechless. I thought that was what we were tryin' to do!?"
    -Ron White, YOU CAN'T FIX STUPID

    :D

    Michale.....

  148. [148] 
    michty6 wrote:

    LB,
    He did what every good troll does and, BTW, took a play right out of the Birther Handbook (Fox Edition): yell something preposterous at the top of your lungs, and continue to yell it.

    Sure I know what you mean and I get he is just playing politics. But having to take anything out of the playbook of birthers/Fox is starting to bring yourself down to their level (in the filthy mud) - obviously not quite since birthers are a whole other level of crazy bigots. I'd say there are cleaner ways of getting your point across without engaging in petty, childish tactics.

    Michale,
    Yes we know, polls that don't agree with your biased view of the world must be biased/useless. We get it. The RCP Average probably isn't accurate, even though it has shown itself to be very accurate in the last 10 years. I can only imagine if Romney was doing well in the polls or makes a resurgence how this will change your mind instantly. Yawn.

  149. [149] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yes we know, polls that don't agree with your biased view of the world must be biased/useless.

    Once again, you change the facts to fit your argument.

    I am on record multiple times as saying that ALL polls are shit.

    It's you who constantly chat up the polls that you agree with and denigrate the polls you don't agree with...

    I can only imagine if Romney was doing well in the polls or makes a resurgence how this will change your mind instantly. Yawn.

    There is no evidence to suggest my mind will change because of a poll change..

    That's what you do...

    ALL polls are shit. I have had this exact same attitude for the last 5 years, as anyone on here can attest to..

    Michale.....

  150. [150] 
    michty6 wrote:

    I am on record multiple times as saying that ALL polls are shit.

    Lolol I mean come on. You contradict this statement about 50 posts back several times, you:

    So, while I think ALL polls are shit and have little if anything to do with reality, I would at least consider giving more credence to the ones that are supported by other facts followed by:

    The unskewed polls DO have supporting facts. All of Obama's bonehead moves and statements the last couple weeks.

    Whatever, there is no point discussing this with you because anything supporting Obama is automatically wrong/part of the liberal media bias in Michale world...

  151. [151] 
    dsws wrote:

    [10] michty6 wrote:

    For MDDOTW I have an offering: Tim Kaine.

    ...

    Yes a minimum federal tax on the poor will fix things. I suggest he switches parties if he trully believes this. Idiot.

    I read it more as seizing the opportunity to remind most Americans that Romney wants to raise their taxes so his billionaire friends can pay less. Sales tax, property tax, and payroll tax aren't enough for Republicans. They want low-income people to pay income tax too -- all so the top bracket can be cut again and again, and capital-gains rates can be zeroed out. The more we're all reminded of that, the better. Even if it's kind of ineptly done some of the time.

  152. [152] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, while I think ALL polls are shit
    -Michale

    You really are losing it if you quote my posts that actually PROVE my point and totally demolishes yours.. :D

    Michale.....

  153. [153] 
    Michale wrote:

    Whatever, there is no point discussing this with you

    What, again??

    This is like the 10th, 12th time you have said this...

    :D

    Michale.....

  154. [154] 
    michty6 wrote:

    dsws

    If he had put it the way you put it that would've been fine - but, as you said, he put it so "ineptly" that he completely missed the whole point!

  155. [155] 
    Michale wrote:

    As I am wont to do, I slam the GOP when it's deserved...

    http://nation.foxnews.com/paul-ryan/2012/09/25/ryan-compares-obama-nfl-replacement-ref

    Give the guys a break.. They are doing the best that they can under very trying and stressful conditions..

    They're working stiffs... Leave 'em alone!

    Michale.....

Comments for this article are closed.
[Powered by WordPress]